I'm starting to think all this 'unfair' comments are a bit of a joke to be honest. If you knew how to do these things, and I'm not talking about magic here, I'm talking about the standard stuff, then you would do it.

If you were on a forum where most of the people were 50 odd and had been doing photography for 20 years, then you wouldn't say that it was unfair that they could enter, or would you? I mean it's like me saying that Joe mcnally or some other world renown photographer is cheating because he knows how to do more than you do.

Obviously I am referring to just the PP work that is done to turn an image into something more viewer friendly.

Surely we shouldn't be complaining how others are able to enhance the colours on their images, but instead asking how we can ALSO improve our photos too? I was looking at Orsan kart's flickr today, and saw some Tilt and shift looking shots. I had no idea you could do that sort of effect in photoshop, and thought it was only possible with a Tilt/shift lens. I liked the effect and will probably look at some on line tutorials at some point.

I'm starting to think all this 'unfair' comments are a bit of a joke to be honest. If you knew how to do these things, and I'm not talking about magic here, I'm talking about the standard stuff, then you would do it. ... snip

....I had no idea you could do that sort of effect in photoshop, and thought it was only possible with a Tilt/shift lens. I liked the effect and will probably look at some on line tutorials at some point.

OMG! my sentiments exactly, there is such a wealth of tutorials out there that there is no excuse for not learning how to PP, there are world reknown photogs that have their work PP'd and airbrushed amongst a wealth of other things - as I said before if it's good enough for them....

One thing I would like to make clear is that I am not suggesting that PS should be used as a replacement for taking a good shot, but instead as a tool to enhance a decent photo in to something more. I try to get the shot I want when I press the shutter with regards composition, light, DOF etc (occassionally I know the limitations and think I can add / remove / alter that in PS later) but if I have a slightly heavy shadow under the nose you can be sure I want to know how to soften that and keep it looking realistic, that's the reason I am always looking to improve my PS skills - definitely not as a substitute for poor photography (but there are times when a mistake is made and a reshoot out of the question).

I reckon I read one or two PS tuts a week, I read 3 or 4 on lighting, and forum post after forum post on general aspects of photography - I guess I am trying to say there is no substitute for learning about the camera and creating good photographs, but there are also endless reasons to learn PP

I am not flaming anyone here, just I have done the whole "Ban PP" thing to death elsewhere and as I said before it ruffles my feathers

As I see, absolutely nothing proves the person who took the picture is the same that PP it, so, if I get a reasonably good shot and send to a friend that is an Photoshop Expert, I can end up with an award winning image that I didn't do myself.... so it can turn into a group competition instead of an personal one.

I agree, these days the enthuses is on “creative post processing” and not necessarily the skill of the photographer or the quality of equipment used.
The whole concept of photography is wide open to debate. I for one believe that too much PP is just hiding a bad capture (putting lipstick on a pig).
It stagnates genuine photographic skill techniques and personal artistic improvement.

i think we are treading into graphic design territory with animation n gifs etc, but im sure then ones without the skill in this area, like my old skool self will think hard and pull something together on a very open subject...

As I see, absolutely nothing proves the person who took the picture is the same that PP it, so, if I get a reasonably good shot and send to a friend that is an Photoshop Expert, I can end up with an award winning image that I didn't do myself.... so it can turn into a group competition instead of an personal one.

I agree, these days the enthuses is on “creative post processing” and not necessarily the skill of the photographer or the quality of equipment used.The whole concept of photography is wide open to debate. I for one believe that too much PP is just hiding a bad capture (putting lipstick on a pig). It stagnates genuine photographic skill techniques and personal artistic improvement.

I aggree with you that too much PP can be a bad thing. Would you mind elaborating on what you think is too much? Are you talking about 'digital art'? Or a photo that's been enhanced (colours etc) How about an example of a photo you think is putting lipstick on a pig? I'd like to see what you think constitutes a lack of skill of the photographer. Show me one photo from the recent on assigment that you think has gone overboard. Send me a pm to tell me if you'd rather not offend anyone.

I can tell you mine has too much PP, I was actually talking to a pro friend about the shot before I entered it and he said it will bomb (thinking I was submitting it to DPC) however PP has until now been quite popular here and HDR effects in particular have been "wow'd" at, so I said to him I would enter it as a comparison. Would I have entered that shot on the other site? Not in a million years, I still like it but I know it has been over processed. The shot itself though was not a "pig" being pretty much technically sound and sharp etc.

I am a little purplexed that some of the people in this debate sound like they are seasoned photog's with Oodles of skill that is being overshadowed by lesser "people with cameras" who are using PP to win some coveted prize... A quick look at certain flickr accounts shows this is not the case and even without looking in any depth I see very poor composition, far too tight crops, huge amounts of centered images, in this case definitely feel free to concentrate on learning a few basics first but please don't start using terms such as putting lipstick on a pig without giving your own work some CC first.

The above is not meant as a flame post and by no means am I suggesting I am any better than any one else, I do read lots, I am open to a wide array of artistic variations within photography and I also know I am improving in leaps and bounds because I refuse to shut the door on anything that will help me get to where I want to be with my craft.

I can tell you mine has too much PP, I was actually talking to a pro friend about the shot before I entered it and he said it will bomb (thinking I was submitting it to DPC) however PP has until now been quite popular here and HDR effects in particular have been "wow'd" at, so I said to him I would enter it as a comparison. Would I have entered that shot on the other site? Not in a million years, I still like it but I know it has been over processed. The shot itself though was not a "pig" being pretty much technically sound and sharp etc.

I am a little purplexed that some of the people in this debate sound like they are seasoned photog's with Oodles of skill that is being overshadowed by lesser "people with cameras" who are using PP to win some coveted prize... A quick look at certain flickr accounts shows this is not the case and even without looking in any depth I see very poor composition, far too tight crops, huge amounts of centered images, in this case definitely feel free to concentrate on learning a few basics first but please don't start using terms such as putting lipstick on a pig without giving your own work some CC first.

The above is not meant as a flame post and by no means am I suggesting I am any better than any one else, I do read lots, I am open to a wide array of artistic variations within photography and I also know I am improving in leaps and bounds because I refuse to shut the door on anything that will help me get to where I want to be with my craft.

Hope you don't mind me being brutally honest here Mark, but I find you do tend to go a little overboard with the PP. IMHO, the art of PP is about not making it obvious. I.e the person has to think 'wow that image rocks', as opposed to 'no way is that shot real'. Although everyone's different and sees this topic differently.

Oh and I've got to agree with you on the bit I've highlighted in bold.

Heh Greg no offense taken mate, as I said the images I submit here are always a "little" more processed than what I submit elsewhere, I kind of use it as a testing ground really.

This shot for instance was just a lighting test, has had a little PP on it and is my usual work I would happily submit elsewhere. For those saying the heads cut off, I cropped it that way deliberately - and the work on the teeth is appalling I submitted the wrong one and it received some great comments so it's staying for now

This one had hardly any alterations done, but there was a fair amount of D&B:

As I said I read a lot then I will apply what I have read on an image often this leads on to a learning curve and where I used to submit every image I ever took they often looked awful haha, now I hardly ever submit and I think my recent uploads here have shown little sign of over PP'in with the exception of this months entry

Heh Greg no offense taken mate, as I said the images I submit here are always a "little" more processed than what I submit elsewhere, I kind of use it as a testing ground really.

This shot for instance was just a lighting test, has had a little PP on it and is my usual work I would happily submit elsewhere. For those saying the heads cut off, I cropped it that way deliberately - and the work on the teeth is appalling I submitted the wrong one and it received some great comments so it's staying for now

This one had hardly any alterations done, but there was a fair amount of D&B:

As I said I read a lot then I will apply what I have read on an image often this leads on to a learning curve and where I used to submit every image I ever took they often looked awful haha, now I hardly ever submit and I think my recent uploads here have shown little sign of over PP'in with the exception of this months entry

Hmm, in shot 1, the skin looks a tiny bit flat, so I'm guessing the skin softening went a fraction further than I would've done. Gotta agree with you on the teeth. I can also tell that somethings been done around the edge of her hair vs the backdrop. Not sure I would have softened her hair either. On the whole though, the lighting is soft, and a good effort. Obviously I'm no pro with lighting but it's just my 2c.

As for the shot of the birds, the sharpening is a bit much for my tastes as they almost look placed, against the background. The eye's also pop a bit too much.

I'm trying to be tactful here so take what I say with a pinch of salt.

The hair hasnt been softened / blurred though it's the DOF I didn't use a blur on the skin either as I recall I used a method of pushing the curves and blending the layer, then pulling them back and blending that layer which reduces the darks / highlights etc. Still something I am learning to do right.

I can see what you mean about the feathers on the birds, strange though as I hadn't really thought that until you pointed it out, that image also came 38th out of 429 entries in a competition that is notoriously hard to please the voters in, so I guess that's of a strange one. The eyes definitely popped a lot when I reduced the image to 720px I hate doing all that work only to have to drop the size and then sharpen, it rarely looks as good as the original the lighting there was amazing though and it was just falling on the birds through the trees

Hi everyone, as always an interesting debate, and thanks for keeping it civil.

If we're looking for a skapegoat, I suggest we all blame Bob for bringing up the idea of animated GIFs in the first place! Ho ho! Only kidding Bob!

Seriously though there's nothing to get stressed about here. Shallowlife's rules merely said to post between two and five images and that PP was allowed if you want it. That's it.

My own addition to the rules was to find some way to present two to five images without each post taking up about five screens worth of scrolling - hence the collage suggestion. This also means you get to decide how your images are presented in relation to each other.

You entry could be as simple as two non-PP'd photos sat next to each other. Nothing more.

I think it's a great theme for this month, and as others have said, we've had some in the past without PP, and I'm sure there'll be more in the future.